Dattatray Keshavrao Marathe v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
*1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 51 WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2022 DATTATRAY KESHAVRAO MARATHE 52 WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2022 DILIP RAJJAN DANDHORE 53 WRIT PETITION NO.7983 OF 2022 DEVIDAS BABURAO DUSANE 54 WRIT PETITION NO.7984 OF 2022 LAXMAN LATKAN PATIL 55 WRIT PETITION NO.7985 OF 2022
*2* BHARAT ANANDA RAISING 56 WRIT PETITION NO.7986 OF 2022 NARAYAN SHANKAR CHANDELKAR 57 WRIT PETITION NO.7987 OF 2022 SANTOSH PANDIT TAYADE 58 WRIT PETITION NO.7988 OF 2022 SURESH DALA PATIL 59 WRIT PETITION NO.7989 OF 2022 DILIP DAGADU KANKHARE
*3* 60 WRIT PETITION NO.7990 OF 2022 PRASHANT VIVEK KANKHARE 61 WRIT PETITION NO.7991 OF 2022 AKIL MOHD. SHAFI BAGWAN 62 WRIT PETITION NO.7992 OF 2022 DILIP LOTU RANE 63 WRIT PETITION NO.7993 OF 2022 PRAKASH PATINGRAO KUMAWAT 64 WRIT PETITION NO.7994 OF 2022 RAVINDRA GOVINDA PATIL
*4* 65 WRIT PETITION NO.7995 OF 2022 ANIL RAMDAS KOLI 66 WRIT PETITION NO.7996 OF 2022 SHARAD GAMBHIR SONAWANE 67 WRIT PETITION NO.7997 OF 2022 RAJARAM AMARSING PATIL 68 WRIT PETITION NO.7998 OF 2022 MADHUKAR SADASHIV POL
*5* 69 WRIT PETITION NO.7999 OF 2022 SHIVCHARAN GAURISHANKAR PANDE 70 WRIT PETITION NO.8000 OF 2022 SUBHASH DAMU SONAWANE 71 WRIT PETITION NO.8001 OF 2022 SAYYAD SAJID ALI SAYYAD ABRD ALI Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Ajay G.Talhar AGP for Respondent 1/ State : Shri P.K. Lakhotiya CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.
DATE :- 01st August, 2022 Per Court :- 1.
The petitioners seek to challenge the communication dated 01.04.2022, which is addressed by the Additional
*6* Commissioner, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, to each of these petitioners. By the said communication, the Municipal Corporation has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Single Judge Bench dated 16.12.2016 in Writ Petition No.12153/2016 filed by Narendra Gopal Kale vs. Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation and a group of petitions. Vide the said communication, the petitioners are placed in a particular pay scale on the basis of the judgment dated 16.12.2016. The contention of the petitioners is that the Municipal Corporation has misread the judgment of this Court.
2.
We find from the record that these petitioners had earlier approached the Labour Court. Insofar as their service benefits were concerned, they had approached the Industrial Court by preferring complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Thereafter, they had approached the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court and the judgment dated 16.12.2016 was delivered.
3.
Since all these petitioners are "workmen" under Section 2(s) and the Municipal Corporation is an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioners have a statutory and efficacious remedy of
*7* approaching the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
4.
In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the said remedy.
kps (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)